Re: About random, primes and statistics
- From: David Bernier <david250@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:06:12 -0400
William Hughes wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:14 pm, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Aug 20, 6:04 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 20, 4:31 pm, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Actually the subject of random is very important in physics, and it
[...]
Your delusions are off-topic for sci.physics. GTFO.
turns out that it's a good exercise to play with statistical tools and
p mod 3, so I'm on topic.
You are not.
I like this route because p mod 3 is so short while it can take a
while to plug everything in, and better yet, watch the math people
start jumping around and acting like crazed freaks when you challenge
them with the results.
I figure, they'll try to talk rational at first, then get increasingly
defensive and then turn to insults, finishing up with claiming that
physics people just don't know math.
And they'll try to walk away at that point and not face any
consequences, I'd guess.
James Harris
I predicit you will ignore simple demonstrations that the
sequence is not random, and demand instead that people explain
to you why it is not random.
- William Hughes
From just under a year ago, there is this reply by
James to a question of yours:
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/87d8b8b69f110a10/ >
[ part of an interesting thread, in my opinion ]
David Bernier
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: About random, primes and statistics
- From: William Hughes
- Re: About random, primes and statistics
- References:
- Re: About random, primes and statistics
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: About random, primes and statistics
- From: JSH
- Re: About random, primes and statistics
- From: William Hughes
- Re: About random, primes and statistics
- Prev by Date: Re: vectors
- Next by Date: Re: Upper bound for problem
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: About random, primes and statistics
- Next by thread: Re: About random, primes and statistics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|